Posts
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Electric Vechicles? 2041?
Why 2041? Three places to look.
In a Newsweek article there was mention of batteries improving 8% per year.
In a wiki supercaptior article : "For comparison, a conventional lead-acid battery is typically 30 to 40 W·h/kg and modern lithium-ion batteries are about 120 W·h/kg. In automobile applications gasoline has a net calorific value (NCV) of around 12,000 W·h/kg, which operates at 20% tank-to-wheel efficiency giving an effective energy density of 2,400 W·h/kg."
That means we need something about 20 times better than lithium-ion batteries.
At 8% it take about 40 years to get 20 times better.
Using the wiki lithium-ion article Litihium-ion was proposed in the 1970s and the first commercial version was made in 1991.
Adding 40 years to that gives you "miracle battery/capacitor" was proposed in 2010s and the first commercial version was made in 2041.
Things could happen quicker or slower but it represents the leap we have to take to get there. This is where hybrids and smaller vehicles fill the gap.
Also remember when someone is saying replace transport fuels with electric you have to consider what is being replaced. If you replace gasoline with a all electric vehicle run off coal, coal only has to provide 20% of the energy the gasoline did. Adding in electric transmission loss and electric engine loss use about 25%.
In the future where hybrids are the majority the comparison may be 40% tank-to-wheel efficiency which would make the coal need to provide 45% of gasoline. At that point you begin to get into the area where there is more CO2 generated by the coal. Then again cars will never have a on-board method of capturing CO2 where with coal it is possible.
In a Newsweek article there was mention of batteries improving 8% per year.
In a wiki supercaptior article : "For comparison, a conventional lead-acid battery is typically 30 to 40 W·h/kg and modern lithium-ion batteries are about 120 W·h/kg. In automobile applications gasoline has a net calorific value (NCV) of around 12,000 W·h/kg, which operates at 20% tank-to-wheel efficiency giving an effective energy density of 2,400 W·h/kg."
That means we need something about 20 times better than lithium-ion batteries.
At 8% it take about 40 years to get 20 times better.
Using the wiki lithium-ion article Litihium-ion was proposed in the 1970s and the first commercial version was made in 1991.
Adding 40 years to that gives you "miracle battery/capacitor" was proposed in 2010s and the first commercial version was made in 2041.
Things could happen quicker or slower but it represents the leap we have to take to get there. This is where hybrids and smaller vehicles fill the gap.
Also remember when someone is saying replace transport fuels with electric you have to consider what is being replaced. If you replace gasoline with a all electric vehicle run off coal, coal only has to provide 20% of the energy the gasoline did. Adding in electric transmission loss and electric engine loss use about 25%.
In the future where hybrids are the majority the comparison may be 40% tank-to-wheel efficiency which would make the coal need to provide 45% of gasoline. At that point you begin to get into the area where there is more CO2 generated by the coal. Then again cars will never have a on-board method of capturing CO2 where with coal it is possible.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Appalachian Coalfields Climate Change Forum
Accc dropped by. Great site to keep informed.
Using Accc was able to find:
Two articles (1, 2)on how Kentucky's coal exporting. The thing that one must be remember in the future that extra mining safety and environmental requirements will no longer be an argument of raising coal prices. Now foreign interests will be getting the benefits of putting Kentucky at risk while raising prices more than safety and environmentalism alone.
An article about our own Duke Energy. After reading this if cap and trade gives out carbon credits to "non-emitters" like nuclear plants Kentucky may want to consider a surtax on tonnes of coal going to any state advantaged by the regulation.
Also Sustainable Kentucky has much orginal material and good set of link. It's worth a visit and a RSS.
Using Accc was able to find:
Two articles (1, 2)on how Kentucky's coal exporting. The thing that one must be remember in the future that extra mining safety and environmental requirements will no longer be an argument of raising coal prices. Now foreign interests will be getting the benefits of putting Kentucky at risk while raising prices more than safety and environmentalism alone.
An article about our own Duke Energy. After reading this if cap and trade gives out carbon credits to "non-emitters" like nuclear plants Kentucky may want to consider a surtax on tonnes of coal going to any state advantaged by the regulation.
Also Sustainable Kentucky has much orginal material and good set of link. It's worth a visit and a RSS.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Coal-to-Gas in Kentucky
In Kentucky's energy plan there is a disconnect between Coal-to-Gas and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC).
It seems that the plan calls for separate Coal-to-Gas facilities.
To be clear the residential price for natural gas is just now falling from it's peak of $20 per thousand cubic feet. However the general increase in the price of natural gas is not guaranteed. It is possible that national natural gas available will rise with the use of domestic Shale Gas and other "unconventional" sources.
We are caught in a situation were future natural gas prices will either dramatically increase or dramatically decrease.
In this regard would it not be better to move efforts into separate Coal-to-Gas facilities into IGCC power plants instead.
Here is the reasoning. Natural Gas is needed more in the winter when electricity demand is low. Electricity is needed more in the summer when natural gas demand is low. An IGCC and Coal-to-Gas both produce syngas. Wouldn't a plant that can switch between electric production and syngas production be a way to hedge the bet on where natural gas prices may go?
A more aggressive plan on replacing existing coal boilers with IGCC with full CCS capabilities would eliminate trying to fit CCS onto the older boilers.
It seems that the plan calls for separate Coal-to-Gas facilities.
To be clear the residential price for natural gas is just now falling from it's peak of $20 per thousand cubic feet. However the general increase in the price of natural gas is not guaranteed. It is possible that national natural gas available will rise with the use of domestic Shale Gas and other "unconventional" sources.
We are caught in a situation were future natural gas prices will either dramatically increase or dramatically decrease.
In this regard would it not be better to move efforts into separate Coal-to-Gas facilities into IGCC power plants instead.
Here is the reasoning. Natural Gas is needed more in the winter when electricity demand is low. Electricity is needed more in the summer when natural gas demand is low. An IGCC and Coal-to-Gas both produce syngas. Wouldn't a plant that can switch between electric production and syngas production be a way to hedge the bet on where natural gas prices may go?
A more aggressive plan on replacing existing coal boilers with IGCC with full CCS capabilities would eliminate trying to fit CCS onto the older boilers.
No to CTL
In Kentucky's energy plan Strategy 4 is "Develop a Coal-to-Liquids Industry in Kentucky to Replace Petroleum-Based Liquids".
The reasoning behind this is:
1) Demand for coal will be reduced as a result of climate change regulation causing a collapse of the Kentucky coal industry. There is no indication that this will occur in the near future. The spot prices for Central Applachchia coal (CAP) went from $40 per short Ton in early 2007 to $140 before the economic collapse of 2008. Asia and India continue import coal from the region during the collapse.
2) It will be economically viable if oil is $50 or $60 a barrel. However, those estimates are based on less than $40 per short ton coal which does not, has not, and will not exist.
3) We need to get away from foreign oil. This is true however efforts should be focused on other alternatives such as biomass and electric.
They did recognize in the report that any CTL facility needs to have total carbon sequestration or move Kentucky in the wrong direction for emission.
The present temporary situation with coal having only fell to $110 and oil below $40 shows how out of line CTL profits could go.
This is not to say research should not be done on CTL however state support of new CTL facilities should not occur until it is clear that the world is using less of our coal. And even then it must be done with some guarantee of the input price of the coal and the output price of the fuel along with total carbon sequestering.
With a report as detailed as this one it would be impossible not to say something negative about it. I am not against the plan just the CTL part of it. I am also not totally against CTL, it is just an option who's time has not come and may not come. We need to refocus onto other things in and out of the plan.
The reasoning behind this is:
1) Demand for coal will be reduced as a result of climate change regulation causing a collapse of the Kentucky coal industry. There is no indication that this will occur in the near future. The spot prices for Central Applachchia coal (CAP) went from $40 per short Ton in early 2007 to $140 before the economic collapse of 2008. Asia and India continue import coal from the region during the collapse.
2) It will be economically viable if oil is $50 or $60 a barrel. However, those estimates are based on less than $40 per short ton coal which does not, has not, and will not exist.
3) We need to get away from foreign oil. This is true however efforts should be focused on other alternatives such as biomass and electric.
They did recognize in the report that any CTL facility needs to have total carbon sequestration or move Kentucky in the wrong direction for emission.
The present temporary situation with coal having only fell to $110 and oil below $40 shows how out of line CTL profits could go.
This is not to say research should not be done on CTL however state support of new CTL facilities should not occur until it is clear that the world is using less of our coal. And even then it must be done with some guarantee of the input price of the coal and the output price of the fuel along with total carbon sequestering.
With a report as detailed as this one it would be impossible not to say something negative about it. I am not against the plan just the CTL part of it. I am also not totally against CTL, it is just an option who's time has not come and may not come. We need to refocus onto other things in and out of the plan.
Kentucky Energy Plan
You can access the plan here or on Kentucky Department for Energy Development and Independence site
Friday, November 14, 2008
S. 1884 Harvesting Energy Act of 2007
A biochar based summary is available here from IBI.
opencongress.org provides the ability to create a widget from any US bill. A widget for S. 1884 is at the bottom this blog now.
opencongress.org provides the ability to create a widget from any US bill. A widget for S. 1884 is at the bottom this blog now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)